David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > > >> > There are still problems with Optional, related to some compilers > >> > not finding std swap(). I wrote the original code following > >> > compressed_pair.hpp, which is via unqualified call (to activate > >> > ADL), plus a using declaration at function scope for GCC. Recently, > >> > Jens Maurer patched it adding an alternative using declaration at > >> > namespace scope (optional_detail) for GCC, but this seems not to > >> > work as the regressions show. > >> > > >> > I don't have access to any of the failing compilers > >> > >> Which compilers are failing and where are the regression report pages? > >> > > Sorry for the delay, I was leaving the office when you posted this.... > > > > Most problems related to swap ocurr with GCC>3.3 > > Well, 3.4 isn't even a released compiler so As far as I'm concerned > it doesn't count. OK.
> 3.3.x is another story. > > > and VC==6.0 > > Hmm. > > > It appears that this problem ocurrs both with 1.30.0 and the current rc 1.30.2 > > > > On Linux_1_30_0: > > gcc3.3: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test > > gcc-3.3 > > gcc3.3.1: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test > > gcc-3.3.1 > > <snip> > > Unfortunately, nearly all of these links point to invalid targets so > my browser doesn't find them :(. Could you just post links to the > summary page one level up? > Sure. >From the main status page, at: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ The link that reads "(Linux-1_30_0)", under the title "Linux", goes to: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-1_30_0.html There are the failures I've shown for gcc3.3 and gcc3.3.1 This page shows the regression for 1.30.0 right? But they show that the newer gcc failed (without Jens patch). > > On Linux: All tests passed. (how come? > > I'm not sure what you mean. If it doesn't say 1_30_0 in the page > it's probably a test of the HEAD revision. > The page is: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux.html So it should correspond to the HEAD revision. IIUC, the HEAD revision contains Jen's broken patch, so this one should fail. I wonder if the reports are swaped (the page titled 1.30.0 being the HEAD and viceversa) > > > On Libux-rc-1_30_0: > ^ > ? > > > gcc3.4: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test > > gcc-3.4-cvs > > gcc3.3: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test > > gcc-3.3 > > gcc3.3.1: > > http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test > > gcc-3.3.1 > > Aren't these the same tests as cited above? > Not exactly. This result appears in the page: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0.html which is the third Linux report from the main page. > > > On Win32_1_30_1: > > gcc: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32-1_30_1-links.html#optional_test-gcc > > Yeah, the "fix" by Jens looks broken to me. Jens, to which versions > of GCC does this patch apply? It was intended for 3.3 as he told me. I think that the correct patch is to revert Jens' fix. (go back to revision 1.9). Can you and others run a quick test to see if this fix is correct? Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
